I can only speak for myself....to me it is not a matter of confronting information I might prefer to not face....in the case of this article it is a matter of the press printing articles that are inappropriate for wartime. I know some active duty military and some vets would take exception about how the Delta Force (if such a unit there is) is portrayed. However, knowing many military officers in different branches of the services, I just ignored that part as ignorant disinformation. What did concern me about the article is the supposing....the special ops plans might change, etc. Any military information discussion is dangerous to the troops on the ground now, and the ones who will follow in the future. I resent "journalists" putting the lives of patriots at risk. I hope that answers your question.
I gotta say your concerns are misplaced. Making it public that the country employed bad tactics and procedures on a mission that the enemy already knows was a disaster is a good thing. It will provide public pressure to change tactics that some bullheaded ops officer or commander somewhere - with greater concern for being right than accomplishing the objectives or protecting the lives of our forces - might not otherwise change. The misuse of special forces has a long and checkered history. They ain't Rambo taking on a regiment personally. They have special skills and training for special missions and they ought to be correctly employed. Period.
Just think, if it had not been regarded as unpatriotic in World War I to publicly challenge military tactics and strategy the British or French or German's might actually have replaced enough senior officers that we did something else besides engage in wholesale slaughter of human beings for no defensible military purpose. But that would have been unpatriotic.